| |
Main
Date: 12 Jun 2006 14:36:40
From: BoyntonStu
Subject: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
"Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
A French Press is the 'standard' for my ideal machine.
Only if a new machine could do it faster, better, would it be IMHO
worthwhile.
What is needed for a good brew? Water at a given tmperature in
complete contact with the freshly ground coffee for a specific time
period, stirred or agitated, and filtered at the final stage.
Water at a precise temperature in an upper reservoir. Digital control,
well insulated, enough water for a day. (Possibly add a water
treatment such as a Brita.)
OK. We have our "Instant hot". That wasn't so difficult.
Next we need to 'charge' our brewer. Press a button and a burr grinder
delivers a set quantity into the brew chamber.
A valve opens and the 'Instant Hot" water flows into the brew chamber.
How about an ultrasonic agitator or a magnetic stirrer, or?
After the brew cycle of, let's say, 3 minutes and 23 seconds (Digital),
the brew chamber valve opens and the brewed coffee falls into the
filter chamber; beneath which sits your cup.
The filter can be any cloth, paper, gold, matgerial that you prefer.
Using my 'No French Press" method, I demonstrated a fresh cup of coffee
within 5 minutes, starting with cold water and a microwave.
Nor only was the person impressed, but she said that she was going to
do away with her coffee maker. She found the "No French Press" method,
faster, and easier to clean (besides tasting better).
If the water had been pre-heated, we are talking a 3 minute cup of
fresh brew.
(Even faster with a finer grind)
I would say that it would almost be instant coffee.
I wish that I had broken my French Press years ago.
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2006 21:58:24
From: TimEggers
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
not both. Thank you!
BoyntonStu wrote:
> "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
>
>
> A French Press is the 'standard' for my ideal machine.
>
> Only if a new machine could do it faster, better, would it be IMHO
> worthwhile.
>
>
> What is needed for a good brew? Water at a given tmperature in
> complete contact with the freshly ground coffee for a specific time
> period, stirred or agitated, and filtered at the final stage.
>
> Water at a precise temperature in an upper reservoir. Digital control,
> well insulated, enough water for a day. (Possibly add a water
> treatment such as a Brita.)
>
>
> OK. We have our "Instant hot". That wasn't so difficult.
>
> Next we need to 'charge' our brewer. Press a button and a burr grinder
> delivers a set quantity into the brew chamber.
>
> A valve opens and the 'Instant Hot" water flows into the brew chamber.
>
> How about an ultrasonic agitator or a magnetic stirrer, or?
>
> After the brew cycle of, let's say, 3 minutes and 23 seconds (Digital),
> the brew chamber valve opens and the brewed coffee falls into the
> filter chamber; beneath which sits your cup.
>
> The filter can be any cloth, paper, gold, matgerial that you prefer.
>
>
> Using my 'No French Press" method, I demonstrated a fresh cup of coffee
> within 5 minutes, starting with cold water and a microwave.
>
> Nor only was the person impressed, but she said that she was going to
> do away with her coffee maker. She found the "No French Press" method,
> faster, and easier to clean (besides tasting better).
>
>
> If the water had been pre-heated, we are talking a 3 minute cup of
> fresh brew.
>
> (Even faster with a finer grind)
>
>
> I would say that it would almost be instant coffee.
>
> I wish that I had broken my French Press years ago.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 07:48:45
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
TimEggers wrote to someone:
> You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
> post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
> appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
> would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
> not both. Thank you!
That's not crossposting at all. Alt.coffee is Usenet; Coffee Geek is a
web site. There are probably many more people who *don't* get to both
forums, so what you're proposing would deprive them just so you won't be
(barely) inconvenienced. Get over it, and pass over those items you see
on both.
--
St. John
They also surf who only stand on waves.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 22:36:36
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:
>TimEggers wrote to someone:
>> You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
>> post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
>> appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
>> would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
>> not both. Thank you!
>
>That's not crossposting at all. Alt.coffee is Usenet; Coffee Geek is a
>web site. There are probably many more people who *don't* get to both
>forums, so what you're proposing would deprive them just so you won't be
>(barely) inconvenienced. Get over it, and pass over those items you see
>on both.
You know, I thought the same thing. I was going to say something. I
thought about it.. how to respond to that? But I really do my best not
to type anything that might annoy people or get them upset here on
a.c. I mean, I want to keep the waters smooth and not uspet the
vegetable cart. Why beat a dead horse when your feet are free? I never
want to mention anything controversial or challenge anyone's
preconceived notions as to what may be right or wrong, but Tim's
comment was sure a pile of shit.
Randy
"MAN, it's hard to type with my tounge that deep in my cheek!"
G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
and, BTW, ;-) applies to all the above.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 00:40:05
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
On 12 Jun 2006 14:36:40 -0700, "BoyntonStu" <stu@aaronj.com > wrote:
>"Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
Which is what the new Clover is. Of course it will set you back
$8,500+.
Marshall "waiting for Groundwork to install theirs in Hollywood when
their share of the Panama Esmeralda Geisha arrives"
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 06:57:38
From: daveb
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
OK, it's not 'cross-posting'
its DOUBLE POSTING! AND annoys some but not all.
dave
St. John Smythe wrote:
> TimEggers wrote to someone:
> > You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
> > post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
> > appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
> > would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
> > not both. Thank you!
>
> That's not crossposting at all. Alt.coffee is Usenet; Coffee Geek is a
> web site. There are probably many more people who *don't* get to both
> forums, so what you're proposing would deprive them just so you won't be
> (barely) inconvenienced. Get over it, and pass over those items you see
> on both.
>
> --
> St. John
> They also surf who only stand on waves.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 22:57:28
From: TimEggers
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
Randy G. wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>
> >TimEggers wrote to someone:
> >> You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
> >> post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
> >> appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
> >> would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
> >> not both. Thank you!
> >
> >That's not crossposting at all. Alt.coffee is Usenet; Coffee Geek is a
> >web site. There are probably many more people who *don't* get to both
> >forums, so what you're proposing would deprive them just so you won't be
> >(barely) inconvenienced. Get over it, and pass over those items you see
> >on both.
>
> You know, I thought the same thing. I was going to say something. I
> thought about it.. how to respond to that? But I really do my best not
> to type anything that might annoy people or get them upset here on
> a.c. I mean, I want to keep the waters smooth and not uspet the
> vegetable cart. Why beat a dead horse when your feet are free? I never
> want to mention anything controversial or challenge anyone's
> preconceived notions as to what may be right or wrong, but Tim's
> comment was sure a pile of shit.
>
> Randy
> "MAN, it's hard to type with my tounge that deep in my cheek!"
> G.
> http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
>
> and, BTW, ;-) applies to all the above.
Wow, didn't think I would strike so many nerves. I simply don't see
the point in the "cut and paste" mentality of posting the exact same
thing, word for word to multiple locations. I am sure I'm not the only
person to frequent both places and I am sure I'm not the only one who
thought there is no need to post in both (especially and identical
copy). I don't regret my opinion (or stating it for that matter)
however and I must say it is just that, my opinion.
Regards,
Tim
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 00:02:52
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
"TimEggers" <timeggers@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1150264648.163628.36190@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Randy G. wrote:
> > "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
> >
> > >TimEggers wrote to someone:
> > >> You posted this exact same thing on coffeegeek as well as your last
> > >> post. Why? Many people frequent both sites and others and we don't
> > >> appreciate cross posting, it's poor form on your part. I wish you
> > >> would stop, it's just tacky not to mention annoying. Here or there,
> > >> not both. Thank you!
> > >
> > >That's not crossposting at all. Alt.coffee is Usenet; Coffee Geek is a
> > >web site. There are probably many more people who *don't* get to both
> > >forums, so what you're proposing would deprive them just so you won't
be
> > >(barely) inconvenienced. Get over it, and pass over those items you
see
> > >on both.
> >
> > You know, I thought the same thing. I was going to say something. I
> > thought about it.. how to respond to that? But I really do my best not
> > to type anything that might annoy people or get them upset here on
> > a.c. I mean, I want to keep the waters smooth and not uspet the
> > vegetable cart. Why beat a dead horse when your feet are free? I never
> > want to mention anything controversial or challenge anyone's
> > preconceived notions as to what may be right or wrong, but Tim's
> > comment was sure a pile of shit.
> >
> > Randy
> > "MAN, it's hard to type with my tounge that deep in my cheek!"
> > G.
> > http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
> >
> > and, BTW, ;-) applies to all the above.
>
> Wow, didn't think I would strike so many nerves. I simply don't see
> the point in the "cut and paste" mentality of posting the exact same
> thing, word for word to multiple locations. I am sure I'm not the only
> person to frequent both places and I am sure I'm not the only one who
> thought there is no need to post in both (especially and identical
> copy). I don't regret my opinion (or stating it for that matter)
> however and I must say it is just that, my opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
I'm also sure I'm not the only one who doesn't frequent both places and I
for one am grateful that he posted here also to share with those of us who
don't frequent cg which as StJ says is a web site where as this is usenet,
completely different beasts.
And the "Wow, didn't think I would strike so many nerves" seems ingenuous
given that the raw nerve that was struck was your own based on your original
post, where you also suggested you weren't the only one feeling this way.
You did come on kinda strong (poor form on your part ;-).
There are a number of posters who post here and also in other forums about
the same subject. Case in point is that this evening I read elsewhere on a
forum I don't visit except very occasionally, that Scott M has solved the
infrared roasting problem he had had with some beans going too dark too
quick by changing to longer wavelength IR. He previously posted in both
forums about this topic but now hasn't posted here at all about this
development to my knowledge.
Next thing you'll want news items to be posted in only one newspaper. Anyone
that doesn't read that newspaper is out of luck.
Hrmmmph!
Much ado about a trifle.
Just my opinion (well what else would any post here be?)
Regards,
Johnny
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 09:15:02
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
Johnny wrote:
> Next thing you'll want news items to be posted in only one newspaper. Anyone
> that doesn't read that newspaper is out of luck.
Heh...now that you mention it, Associated Press stories printed in both
of a town's newspapers are a similar "inconvenience" (as well as often
being "cut and paste").
> Much ado about a trifle.
Ayuh.
--
St. John
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
-Ogden Nash
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 07:45:36
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:
>Johnny wrote:
>> Next thing you'll want news items to be posted in only one newspaper. Anyone
>> that doesn't read that newspaper is out of luck.
>
>Heh...now that you mention it, Associated Press stories printed in both
>of a town's newspapers are a similar "inconvenience" (as well as often
>being "cut and paste").
>
>> Much ado about a trifle.
>
>Ayuh.
Just so I don't get confused in all this, I was joking as my Sig and
following line indicated. I do think that there are more folks who do
one forum or the other and not both (I am one who does just this forum
except for the rare times when I am invited to participate in a
specific thread at CG.). But posting in both does not seem like a
problem. If your time is so precious that you don't have the time to
see the same post twice then the problem is with your time mamagement
and not with the posters "cross-posting" practices. Skim, dude, skim.
;-)
As far as the press goes, unfortunately the trend in finding the same
articles in multiple sources has been happening for some time when it
concerns news from out of the area. Most of it comes from one or two
sources and the papers just take it off the "wire" and print it. it
remves their need to fact check and they don't need to pay reporters.
The same goes for TV. With the mega-corps buying up masses of papers
in communities (where one corp ends up owning all the papers in a
community or region) and as print and distribution costs skyrocket,
this will only get worse and is working on watering down print news.
It will eventually lead to the end of print papers as we know them.
Randy "available on the Net" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 10:34:59
From: TimEggers
Subject: Re: "Instant" freshly brewed coffee - my ideal machine concept.
|
You know I have read and re-read this whole topic and I honestly don't
know what to say. There are some good points made indeed. I guess it
all comes down to point of view and personal preferences, and as we all
though those vary widely not only from group to group but much more so
person to person.
What do I think now? Hell I don't know. Was I too harsh? Perhaps.
Does any of this matter at all? No not really. So there you have it I
guess, none of this really matters.
Happy cross posting...er..um...double posting...
-Tim "outta here" Eggers
|
|
